Peer Review: WHO pays?
Graham_Clark at d4.niaid.pc.niaid.nih.gov
Fri Nov 3 09:30:06 EST 1995
-YOU (as a researcher) don't pay for anything.
-In fact, it is precisely the opposite: you are PAID to do
-your reserarch AND spend your WORKING (i.e. PAID) time
-on anonymous peer review (please, don't try to convince
-me that you do it in your leisure time on weekends).
Actually, I DO do it at night and on weekends. However, as I
am writing this on paid time and find it less worthwhile than APR
I'm going to stop after this reply.
-(2) ...'highly regarded'...
-regarded BY WHOM ? By you ? By me ? By public ? By feds ?
-By "science at large" ? ...
All off the above. APR is a form of quality control. I would not
expect the public to pay for a product that had not been examined
objectively before being unleashed on them.
-Yes, it is appaling if you have never heard/thought of
I HAVE thought about it and rejected the alternative of no APR. APR
may not be perfect, far from it, but I have seen no alternative that
strikes me as viable.
-I am sorry, it appears you didn't quite get what we've
-been saying all along. You still believe that "us" (who
-"us" ?) are somehow have priveledged entitlement to
-control what other scientists can or can not publish or
-research. Who (and on what basis) give "you" this right ?
'Us' is the majority (I believe) who accept that APR, while flawed, is
preferable to a free for all. And as I stated early in this 'debate'
you seem to believe it is a right to have results published. I see no
way of doing this without it seriously affecting the prices we pay for
already expensive journals - unless you are willing to have a separate
peer reviewed and non-reviewed literature. If you want an APR-free
journal what is stopping you from starting one?
-"anyone who wants to do an experiment should be funded":
-precisely, for as long as he/she can reliably demonstate
-his/her qualifications (track record assessment - I am
-NOT against this and this is NOT a peer review).
So would you be happier if we called APR "research product assessment"?
I fail to see any substantive difference between peer review of grants
and peer review of manuscripts.
More information about the Bioforum